Redevelopment Plans for Liverpool Street - Development Policy Going Backwards

[yorksrob]

It is around twenty-five years since Network SouthEast undertook an architecturally sensitive redevelopment of Liverpool Street station. Yes, some pleasant older aspects were lost, but we do still have a light and airey concourse and an attractive, historic train shed on the West side of the station.

However apparently there are plans by MTR (the Hong Kong railway company) to build an office block over the station's concourse which will go out to consultation soon.

According to Rail 964 "the redevelopment is expected to be privately funded, and would likely include a new office development above the station". Shockingly Rail Magazine seems to say nothing about the historical aspect of the trainshed which would be destroyed.

Isn't this a step backwards to the bad old days of the Birmingham New Street underground car park ? Surely we should be beyond the days of burying our attractive stations under an office block ?

 

[The Planner]

Oversite development is/was all the rage. Was also the plan at Euston, might still well be.

 

[yorksrob]

Oversite development is/was all the rage. Was also the plan at Euston, might still well be.

They might as well do it over the platforms at Euston. You wouldn't be losing anything much.

 

[tomuk]

Shockingly Rail Magazine seems to say nothing about the historical aspect of the trainshed which would be destroyed.

Will any of the actual historic trainshed be lost? A surprisingly large part of Liverpool Street is 'fake' and didn't exist before the 1990s redevelopment.

 

[yorksrob]

Will any of the actual historic trainshed be lost? A surprisingly large part of Liverpool Street is 'fake' and didn't exist before the 1990s redevelopment.

I don't really see how you could build over the concourse without destroying it.

Plus there's the fact that however historic bits of it may or may not be, you're replacing a grand, bright, well lit with natural light, space, with something which will inevitably be subterranean.

 

[R Martin]

Only the Platform canopies for Platform 1 to 9 are original, and not all of that a large portion was taken up by the old general offices. Still the station is so much more attractive than the old station and I think the designers should be congratulated on the improvement

 

[yorksrob]

Only the Platform canopies for Platform 1 to 9 are original, and not all of that a large portion was taken up by the old general offices. Still the station is so much more attractive than the old station and I think the designers should be congratulated on the improvement

Not so much platform canopies, but a trainshed, but I take your point.

 

[stuu]

I believe it is to replace the hotel and the existing entrance on Liverpool St, none of the trainshed will be involved. Not seen any actual renders demonstrating exactly where it will sit though

 

[londonteacher]

If the money given to Network Rail for using the airspace is a generous amount this could be a great idea - great source of income which the railway desperately needs. If done well, it could also look great. Crossrail core stations are primarily underground and have been designed well so no reason why something light and well ventilated couldn’t be designed to cover the concourse at the station.

 

[yorksrob]

I believe it is to replace the hotel and the existing entrance on Liverpool St, none of the trainshed will be involved. Not seen any actual renders demonstrating exactly where it will sit though

Interestingly, the hotel is one of the few historic bits of the old station retained in the re-modelling.

The trainshed extends over the concourse, so I don't see how they could avoid it

 

[tomuk]

Interestingly, the hotel is one of the few historic bits of the old station retained in the re-modelling.

The trainshed extends over the concourse, so I don't see how they could avoid it

The hotel wasn't retained only the façade the innards were demolished and replaced.

Personally I like Liverpool Street and it is probably the best of the 80s BR over station developments.

However most of the concourse is only 30 years old.

 

[yorksrob]

The hotel wasn't retained only the façade the innards were demolished and replaced.

Personally I like Liverpool Street and it is probably the best of the 80s BR over station developments.

However most of the concourse is only 30 years old.

It will be interesting to see what they propose to replace it with. Personally I don't think you can improve on light and airey.

 

[alex397]

I really feel like architectural standards are declining significantly in this country. Covering a station with a building should not even come in to consideration. This feels very much like some of the mistakes of the 1960s.

 

[yorksrob]

I really feel like architectural standards are declining significantly in this country. Covering a station with a building should not even come in to consideration. This feels very much like some of the mistakes of the 1960s.

My thoughts entirely.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It is around twenty-five years since Network SouthEast undertook an architecturally sensitive redevelopment of Liverpool Street station. Yes, some pleasant older aspects were lost, but we do still have a light and airey concourse and an attractive, historic train shed on the West side of the station.

The sectors had very little real influence on the BR Property Board. The Liverpool Street (and Broad Street) scheme had been in development for years, well before Network South East came along. Obviously there were some sectoral cosmetic touches, like the red, white and blue bands round the columns holding up the office block over the high-numbered platforms.

Interestingly, the hotel is one of the few historic bits of the old station retained in the re-modelling.

The trainshed extends over the concourse, so I don't see how they could avoid it

Will any of the actual historic trainshed be lost? A surprisingly large part of Liverpool Street is 'fake' and didn't exist before the 1990s redevelopment.

The hotel wasn't retained only the façade the innards were demolished and replaced.

There is a fantastic double-page spread on pages 222 & 223 of The Railway Surveyors by Gordon Biddle (essentially the definitive history of the BR Property Board and its predecessors). This shows Liverpool Street from above during re-development. Only a small amount of the train shed over the West Side survived. It is almost lost, surrounded by the new development at the country end/throat and flanked by the already completed office development over the East Side and the Broadgate development.

The whole 'concourse' (and much of the West Side shed) is a fake/replica/pastiche depending on one's taste.

I do agree, however, that it has a nice atmosphere.

I also recall an earlier BR scheme, back in the 1970s, when I was living in Enfield, and even attended an exhibition and drop-in consultation (about how many shops it should have among other things). The idea then was for the entire complex to be razed to the ground and effectively 'rotated' by about ten degrees to ease the curvature in the throat and allow for four additional platforms (possibly for any surviving Broad Street services and/or a 'third London airport' link). There would have been two more approach tracks, largely obtained by demolishing the Bishopsgate Goods Yard complex.

Obviously the need for the additional surface tracks was 'replaced' by things like the Jubilee Line, Overground, DLR, HS1, and Elizabeth Line.

But what we got in the 1990s actually represented a huge gain from the earlier plan (sniffily once dismissed in The Guardian I think it was, as "Eastern Region's Brasilia").

Having seen what absolutely gigantic stations and interchange complexes can achieve in Tokyo I can see the transport benefits of a completely 'developed' footprint. Shinjuko has about a billion passengers per year and around 200 entrances/exits. Modal share for electric public transport is, of course, much higher than in GB.

 

[yorksrob]

The sectors had very little real influence on the BR Property Board. The Liverpool Street (and Broad Street) scheme had been in development for years, well before Network South East came along. Obviously there were some sectoral cosmetic touches, like the red, white and blue bands round the columns holding up the office block over the high-numbered platforms.





There is a fantastic double-page spread on pages 222 & 223 of The Railway Surveyors by Gordon Biddle (essentially the definitive history of the BR Property Board and its predecessors). This shows Liverpool Street from above during re-development. Only a small amount of the train shed over the West Side survived. It is almost lost, surrounded by the new development at the country end/throat and flanked by the already completed office development over the East Side and the Broadgate development.

The whole 'concourse' (and much of the West Side shed) is a fake/replica/pastiche depending on one's taste.

I do agree, however, that it has a nice atmosphere.

I also recall an earlier BR scheme, back in the 1970s, when I was living in Enfield, and even attended an exhibition and drop-in consultation (about how many shops it should have among other things). The idea then was for the entire complex to be taxed to the ground and effectively 'rotated' by about ten degrees to ease the curvature in the throat and allow for four additional platforms (possibly for any surviving Broad Street services and/or a 'third London airport' link). There would have been two more approach tracks, largely obtained by demolishing the Bishopsgate Goods Yard complex.

Obviously the need for the additional surface tracks was 'replaced' by things like the Jubilee Line, Overground, DLR, HS1, and Elizabeth Line.

But what we got in the 1990s actually represented a huge gain from the earlier plan (sniffily once dismissed in The Guardian I think it was, as "Eastern Region's Brasilia").

Having seen what absolutely gigantic stations and interchange complexes can achieve in Tokyo I can see the transport benefits of a completely 'developed' footprint. Shinjuko has about a billion passengers per year and around 200 entrances/exits. Modal share for electric public transport is, of course, much higher than in GB.

Perhaps the triumph of the earlier Liverpool Street development is that it retains the feel of what a London station should be. Certainly, I'm sad that the trainshed on the eastern side with its tea room on stilts was lost.

Perhaps the whole thing is a pastiche. But it's a good pastiche - and better than an underground car park !

 

[tomuk]

Here is a picture of the 'main' entrance of Bishopsgate being built in 1989


Liverpool St station reconstruction 1989
Robin Webster / Rebuilding Liverpool Street Station, 1989

Here is the mid 70s city of the future version.

 

[Bald Rick]

It is around twenty-five years since Network SouthEast undertook an architecturally sensitive redevelopment of Liverpool Street station.

Thirty five years!

 

[yorksrob]

Here is a picture of the 'main' entrance of Bishopsgate being built in 1989


Liverpool St station reconstruction 1989
Robin Webster / Rebuilding Liverpool Street Station, 1989

Here is the mid 70s city of the future version.

Which illustrates that just because something is more modern than you expect it to be, doesn't make it worthless.

The fourth arch of Paddington is the prime example. Yes, it's not Brunel's but it's better than an underground car park.

Thirty five years!

Time flies

 

[stuu]

I really feel like architectural standards are declining significantly in this country. Covering a station with a building should not even come in to consideration. This feels very much like some of the mistakes of the 1960s.

Just as well that it isn't then

 

[James H]

Over-station development is also back on the cards at Waterloo, with NR and Lambeth council recently commissioning Grimshaws (who designed Waterloo International) to draw up a masterplan. Though previous attempts at OSD at Waterloo have run into trouble because the tube layout doesn't leave much space for foundations

 

[Bald Rick]

Two lessons to learn here:

1) Perhaps before judging what is proposed, we should wait to see what is actually proposed
2) RAIL magazine is not necessarily the best source of information

 

[507020]

I’ve been struggling to work out how much of Liverpool Street is original, but they can’t seriously be considering getting rid of any of it in favour of a Birmingham New Street Manchester Victoria London Euston type dark polluted box (except there are no Diesels in Liverpool Street)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve been struggling to work out how much of Liverpool Street is original, but they can’t seriously be considering getting rid of any of it in favour of a Birmingham New Street Manchester Victoria London Euston type dark polluted box (except there are no Diesels in Liverpool Street)

Several of the platforms already are that. It's the concourse that's of concern, but I would need to see the proposals before commenting on that, I would hardly say it was beautiful now, it's one of my least favourite London termini, overcrowded and dated with poor facilities - in a way a lot in common with old New St but with some fancier architecture.

"IanVisits" website suggests the station building frontage is actually less than 30 years old and is just a replica, though reused old bricks, so it's not even a historic building.

 

[tomuk]

If you look at this overhead view the grey coloured roof to the right of the picture and the innars of the hotel at the front are 'reproductions'.

 

[eldomtom2]

The whole 'concourse' (and much of the West Side shed) is a fake/replica/pastiche depending on one's taste.

And this is a fine example of one of the key problems with present-day architectural thought - the idea that anything imitative of the past is worthless.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And this is a fine example of one of the key problems with present-day architectural thought - the idea that anything imitative of the past is worthless.

Pretty much all housebuilders don't agree...most British new build houses to some extent imitate old ones. Ultramodern looking was a 70s thing.

 

[yorksrob]

Over-station development is also back on the cards at Waterloo, with NR and Lambeth council recently commissioning Grimshaws (who designed Waterloo International) to draw up a masterplan. Though previous attempts at OSD at Waterloo have run into trouble because the tube layout doesn't leave much space for foundations

That would be an even bigger red card for me.

Same old mistakes - we'll have route closures too, just to complete the "all the rubbish ideas from the late twentieth century" theme.

Two lessons to learn here:

1) Perhaps before judging what is proposed, we should wait to see what is actually proposed
2) RAIL magazine is not necessarily the best source of information

The lesson is surely:

"Be on your guard, as the (insert pejorative term of choice) are bound to try it on again in thirty years time".

To be fair to Rail, it is informing us that something is actually proposed.

 

[alex397]

Just as well that it isn't then

What do you mean by that?

 

[stuu]

What do you mean by that?

That there isn't a proposal to cover a station with a building. The proposal is to knock down some existing buildings, and replace them with a much bigger one